Amon Göeth, Psychopathic Counterpart of the Gaza Snipers

To document the importance of subliminal messages in movies, let’s turn to one of the most memorable movies ever: Schindler’s List, a fiction by Jewish director Steven Spielberg. Our intention is to show how Jewish owned Hollywood hides and falsifies facts to sully White culture. [1] As noted by Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review:

Even many of those who readily acknowledge the tremendous influence of American film and television seem not to fully comprehend the formidable scope of the power behind Hollywood, or the outlook and agenda of those who wield that power… Hollywood, together with the rest of the Jewish-Zionist dominated US media, sensationalizes and distorts current events, systematically falsifies history, promotes debased “entertainment” and perverse cultural standards, and makes possible the Jewish-Zionist hold on American political life.[2]

As explained below in more detail, invariably, this movie and many others such as Sophie’s Choice, The Zone of Interest, and Nuremberg are basically deterrents to racial consciousness and national sovereignty, by showing how they can lead to genocide and unimaginable sadism and cruelty, when combined with ideologies of superiority, dehumanization, and state power. This is vividly illustrated by psychopath Amon Göeth, one of the main characters of Schindler’s List, who, paradoxically,  shot Jews the same way Gaza snipers are documented to routinely and deliberately shoot Palestinians.[3]

What happens in this fiction pales in comparison to the reality of the inhumane, unflinching, and stark violence of the IDF soldiers and settlers of the West Bank: The scorched-earth Palantir-AI-guided pulverisation of hospitals, schools, bridges, business, and residential buildings; the deliberate assassination of doctors and journalists; the starvation of Palestinians, who are dehumanized by labelling them as “animals”; the sex parties of the IDF soldiers, the mocking of Palestinians, the looting of their homes, and the blocking and stealing of international aid; the public humiliation of the aid flotilla activists by the minister of National security, Itamar Ben-Gvir; the rape and torture of adults and minors of both sexes; the mass graves of people buried alive; the lust for blood by God’s “chosen people,” who have convinced themselves of their superiority over their brothers, the Arab Semites; and their lust for revenge on Amalek, the archetypical enemy of the Jewish race, turns into farce the main Talmudic message of Schindler’s List: “Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.”

Never Again”: The Magic Wand of Democracy.

Before examining the truth of the most gruesome scene of Schindler’s List, the balcony scene, let’s first examine the hidden messages of the movie:

Deterrent to Racial Consciousness

By portraying Germans, and by association Whites, as the embodiment of absolute evil, this systematic stigmatization serves to neutralize with guilt the racial consciousness of the whole White race, and by extension, its instinct for self-preservation. Left defenceless, Whites are then incapable of defending themselves against their own replacement by extra-Europeans, and ultimately, Jewish-global governance and a world with no borders.

DeepSeek on the Great Replacement

What Jews fear most of all,” writes author F. Britton in his book Behind Communism, “is a resurgence of racial consciousness among the vast white majority of the Western world. They remember that the very moment the German people regained their racial consciousness, they turned with deadly fury against the Jews.[4]

The Jewish Interest in Multiethnic Immigration and Multiculturalism

Indeed, Jews know by experience that racial consciousness is the best survival strategy. Their position in our societies is a testament to that. Israel and the Jewish diaspora are in fact emboldened by a powerful sense of destiny and identity based on racial consciousness. As such, Jews see themselves as a collective group that thrives on its racial homogeneity, unity, solidarity, and “what’s good for the Jews,” something they expressly forbid Whites from doing precisely because they don’t want their main racial competitor to snap out of its torpor and resist its replacement and disappearance.

Moses, the First “Führer” in History: Jewish Racial Consciousness and Supremacism

Deterrent to National Sovereignty

Racial consciousness leads to patriotism and cultural, social, economic, and financial sovereignty. This was the sin that led to Hitler’s demise. According to Churchill’s “appalling admission,” writes Jean-Jacques Stormay in his book Reflections on Nationalism, “The unforgivable crime of Germany before the Second World War was her attempt to detach her economic power from the world trading system and to become financially sovereign.”[5]

The Jewish-led Anglo-American bankers of the City, Wall Street, and their central bank satellites[6] —those who started the First and Second World Wars, [7] and most wars since [8]—could not tolerate that Germany, which was previously in their thrall, had become a powerful sovereign nation, racially conscious and patriotic, with an autarkic vocation, and an independent trading system.

To paraphrase J. J. Stormay: “those whom official history and the conventions of language oblige us to call the ‘Allies’ did not intervene to ‘liberate’ Europe from Hitler’s ‘barbarism.’” They intervened, for the benefit of the Jewish-led bankers, “to cut up traditional Europe which had become all the more dangerous for them because it was in the process of becoming itself again—thanks to the nationalism adopted by its traditional nations, which had finally become sovereign, complementary, and no longer conflicting”; akin to the BRIC countries such as Russia, China, and Iran, which are trying to free themselves from the Jewish-led Western banking hegemony.[9]

Hitler’s goal was a “Europe of sovereign Nations” based on race and similar to the Roman Empire at its peak of power during the Pax Romana (27 BCE—180 CE). According to Belgian politician Léon Degrelle, one of Hitler’s most brilliant soldiers,[10] the Führer wanted a pan-European union with freedom of movement within it, but restricted to the people who are part of the European gene pool.

To paraphrase American evolutionary psychologist, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, such a race realist point of view would have stressed the genetic interests of Europeans first. It would have constituted a group evolutionary strategy to the extent that it had the political will to keep other races out. It would have turned Europe into a superpower as powerful if not more than any of its competitors.[11]

The problem, of course, comes from the fact that such a national-raced-based-policy was completely contrary to the interests of the Jewish-led Big Money class, as is the case today, more than ever. So, of course, it had to be stopped just like all present sovereign countries, which are not subservient to the Epstein class.

Many countries since have been destroyed by this “money machine” and many more, such as Russia, China, and Iran, are threatened with destruction if they cannot find a way out of the banker’s crosshairs.

The Balcony Scene

After this brief review of the hidden messages of Schindler’s List, let’s take a look at one of its most emblematic scenes: the balcony scene. In this striking portrait of alleged German cruelty, writes former US Navy pilot Benton Bradberry in his book, The Myth of German Villainy,

The Nazi commandant of the concentration camp (supposedly the Plaszow camp outside of Krakow, not far from Auschwitz) is standing shirtless on the balcony of his house with a hunting rifle over his bare shoulders. The rifle is equipped with a telescopic sight. In the movie, the house is located on a hill above the camp so that he can look down on the throngs of prisoners milling around in the compound below. He lifts the rifle to his shoulder and through the telescope begins casually scanning from one prisoner to another. The image through the telescope now fills the movie screen. The crosshairs of the scope stop on a randomly selected prisoner. He pulls the trigger and the prisoner drops to the ground, dead. The screen then cuts back to the Nazi commandant to show bored insouciance as he actuates the bolt of his rifle and casually raises it back to his shoulder. He fires again, and again a prisoner drops to the ground, dead. Bored with his “target practice,” he turns his attention to the beautiful, sexy, naked woman lying on a bed just inside the house from the balcony. The woman is purportedly one of his Jewish housemaids selected from the camp who also apparently serves as his sex slave. His face expresses disdainful, though lackadaisical, cynicism^.[12]

As Benton Bradberry points out, the purpose of this gruesome scene, as well as the presence of the naked Jewish maid, is to make the officer look like a totally depraved psychopath.

What is false: This scene is entirely fictional. The real camp in Płaszów was completely out of sight from the commander’s balcony. Thus, even if he had wanted to, he could not shoot into the camp from the top of his balcony in order to amplify the cruelty of the character. Moreover, the commander Amon Göeth did have two Jewish maids chosen from among the prisoners in the camp, but they were not beautiful and sexy like the ones in the film, and there is no indication that he had improper relations with them. This sex story was added to the film only to spice it up.[13]

What is true: Major Göeth was indeed a godless, cruel, and bloodthirsty psychopath of the kind that’s found everywhere, especially in times of war, in an environment handmade for such monsters.[14]

What is false: What the millions of viewers who saw Schindler’s List do not know is that this was not a generalized behavior, typical of all National Socialists and all Germans, as the film implies. Jews, moreover, were not the only victims.[15]

What is true: While the IDF rarely punishes soldiers for war crimes against Palestinians, with data indicating near-total impunity,[16] the SS had an internal security police force whose mission was to prosecute German camp personnel involved in corruption or brutality. Hundreds of delinquents were arrested, tried, and punished by the Germans with sentences ranging from prison to execution. In September 1944, Göeth, for example, was arrested and imprisoned for bribery and murder of prisoners by the SS HaupAmt Gericht, the central office of SS justice. Göeth’s arrest (he was executed after the war in 1946) came after an investigation by German military judge Georg Konrad Morgen and officers of the Reich Security Office. [17]^{, [18]}

Ultimately, the existence of this internal security police is just another one of those oddities surrounding the Holocaust—and the image of the Holocaust presented to us by Hollywood and the media—that makes us wonder what really happened during that tragic period.

Jews and other minorities were indeed persecuted and locked up in concentration camps and many were expelled from the country when the war started in 1939. No one denies that atrocities were committed during this period of intense turmoil; families were separated, the elderly and the sick died in troves unable to resist the hardships of war.

The major claims made by historical revisionists are:

• There was no genocide of the Jews; the final solution was a territorial solution;
• Gas chambers were not used to kill Jews, but to kill lice and to save lives as the deadly typhus disease, which caused most of the deaths in the camps, is transmitted by lice; Zyklon B is in fact an insecticidal gas;
• 6 million Jews did not die during the war;
• The official narrative of the Second World War is false; the Germans were the good guys.

The examination of these matters is beyond the scope of this article, but curious minds, concerned by the present state of the world, should look into the matter for the sake of justice and progress as one of the main obstacles to the death of the Jewish globalist utopia and the birth of a peaceful multipolar world is the official narrative of the Holocaust and WW2.

I invite my readers to look into the many convincing contradictory articles, books, and movies on the matter. Here are a few references:

Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, London: Armreg Ltd, 2024 (5^th edition).

Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell. The Holocaust, Myth & Reality, London: Armreg Ltd, 2024.

Holocaust Encyclopedia, Uncensored and Unrestrained, 2025. Sponsored by the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (www.CODOH.com).

For a contradictory version of WW2:

Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told, 2026.

Benton Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 2^nd revised and updated edition, Money Tree Publishing, 2023.

Articles of Interest from Pierre Simon:

A Racial War That Dares Not Say Its Name

The Saddest Story Never Told. The Real Cause of WW2

Was Fascism the Height of Abomination?

Why Were Hitler and the Germans Antisemites?

“Never Again”: The Magic Wand of Democracy

Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

[1] Lisa Klug, “Who Said Jews Run Hollywood?” The Times of Israel, 2016.

[2] Mark Weber, Hollywood’s Agenda, and the Power Behind It, Institute for Historical Review, Feb. 6, 2013.

[3] Caitlin Johnstone, “Israeli Snipers Routinely, Deliberately Shoot Palestinian Kids in the Head,” Global Research, October 10, 2024; Hoda Osman and Emma Graham-Harrison, ‘The Gaza family torn apart by IDF snipers from Chicago and Munich,” The Guardian, Tuesday 9, Sep 2025.

[4] Frank L. Britton, Behind Communism, River Crest Publishing, 2021 (first published in 1952), pp 116-118.

[5] Churchill’s quote is from Écrits de Paris, n^o 613, September, 1999, p. 40.

[6] Alex Krainer, “The Banks Are Driving Forever Wars,” YouTube, May 15, 2026.

[7] Thomas Dalton, PhD, The Jewish hands in the World Wars, Castle Hill Publishers, 2019.

[8] For a good explanation on how bankers start all wars see this interview of German economist Richard Werner on the YouTube Tucker Carlson channel: “Every Major War Begins Under False Pretenses & the Central Banks Are Behind It. Economist Explains,” May 22, 2026.

[9] Jean-Jacques Stormay, Réflections sur le Nationalisme : En relisant ‘Doctrines du nationalisme’ de Jacques Ploncard d’Assac, Reconquista Press, 2019, pp. 76-77.

[10] Léon Degrelle, Hitler pour mille ans, La Table Ronde, 1969.

[11] Kevin MacDonald, PhD, Individualism and Western Liberal Tradition. Evolutionary Origins, History and Prospects for the Future, Kindle Direct Publishing Edition, 2019, pp. 88-89.

[12] Benton Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 2^nd revised and updated edition, Money Tree Publishing, 2023, p. 2.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Amon Göeth—Pure Evil, May 24, 2025.

[15] Categories of Prisoners, Memorial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau.

[16] Dan Sabbagh, “Israel closes down or leaves unresolved 88% of cases of alleged war crimes or abuse – report,” The Guardian, Aug 2, 2025.

[17] K. Prenger, A Judge in Auschwitz – Konrad Morgen’s Crusade Against SS Corruption & ‘Illegal’ Murder, Pen & Sword Books, 2021.

[18] Konrad Morgen, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

For decades, prominent Jewish voices have wrestled privately with an uncomfortable question. Does aggressive Israeli government conduct expose diaspora Jewish communities to backlash they did not invite? In early March, Ezra Klein brought that question back into public view. Speaking with former Obama senior adviser Ben Rhodes on a podcast episode titled “The Great Lie of War”, the New York Times columnist warned that Israel’s central role in the joint U.S. assault on Iran could fuel a new wave of antisemitism.

The two men spent most of the interview discussing the strategic recklessness of the Iran operation where the United States and Israel launched an assault that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and much of his senior command. They examined the lack of congressional authorization, the absence of an endgame, the risk of a massive refugee crisis, and what they described as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s long-sought goal of drawing the United States into direct military confronttion with Iran.

The antisemitism remark came near the end of that segment, specifically as a follow-on to a discussion about Saudi ambivalence toward the war and the question of what Israel actually wants from the conflict. Klein’s exact words in the transcript were, “I’m not saying this is the biggest issue at this moment, but the centrality of Israel in the operation has raised some concerns for me about what this is going to mean for anti-Semitism. You see the amount of talk on the MAGA right, but elsewhere as well that, you know, Israel’s leverage over Donald Trump or that, you know, this is all just some kind of Israeli plot.”

Klein then noted that Netanyahu appeared to be gambling with Israel’s long term political standing in America and in the world at a time of “very, very sharply rising anti-Semitism,” expressing uncertainty about how it would all pan out. The New York Times columnist’s concern, stated plainly, was that Israel’s highly visible, central role in what many perceived as an unjustified war of aggression would fuel conspiracy theories rather than defuse them. His worry was that Netanyahu’s short-term tactical success, finally getting a U.S. president to strike Iran, risked long-term consequences for Jews, especially in the United States.

This dilemma is not new. Jewish billionaire George Soros articulated a similar concern over two decades ago. Soros has largely steered clear of public association with Jewish communal life and seldom appears at exclusively Jewish functions. That changed in 2003, when he took the stage at a New York City meeting hosted by the Jewish Funders Network. Questioned about the spread of antisemitism across Europe, Soros offered an unexpected diagnosis, laying blame at the feet of U.S. and Israeli policy. “There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that,” he stated. “If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly.”

At the time, the reaction from Jewish leadership was furious. Elan Steinberg, who served as senior adviser to the World Jewish Congress after a stint as its executive director, fired back. “Let’s understand things clearly: Anti-Semitism is not caused by Jews; it’s caused by anti-Semites.” Abraham Foxman dismissed Soros’s words as “absolutely obscene.” The head of the ADL elaborated. “He buys into the stereotype. It’s a simplistic, counterproductive, biased and bigoted perception of what’s out there. It’s blaming the victim for all of Israel’s and the Jewish people’s ills.”

The Foxman and Steinberg responses reflected an orthodox position within Jewish communal leadership. Antisemitism, in this view, is a pathology of antisemites, and any attempt to link it to Israeli behavior constitutes victim blaming. Yet this position has always co-existed uneasily with a practical awareness that Israeli actions, particularly those perceived as disproportionate or aggressive, create public relations challenges for diaspora Jewish communities.

Klein’s 2026 remarks fall squarely within this tension. He was warning that Netanyahu’s gamble, making Israel so visibly central to an unpopular war, would hand ammunition to those who already believed such theories. Polling data suggests that Klein’s concerns about Israel’s political standing are well-founded. Gallup’s 2025 Annual World Affairs Survey documented a broader collapse in American sentiment toward Israel. Only 46% of Americans sympathized with Israelis, the lowest figure in 25 years of Gallup tracking. Among Democrats, 59% sympathized more with Palestinians—with only 21% sympathizing with Israelis—creating a nearly 3-to-1 ratio, the first time Palestinians had held such a commanding lead among members of a major U.S. party. A majority of Americans, and a record-high 76% of Democrats, supported an independent Palestinian state.

These trends predate the Iran strike and reflect cumulative damage from Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The joint United States and Israel operation against Iran, with Israel’s role so prominently featured, is unlikely to reverse this trajectory and will more than likely heighten Western populations’ hostility toward Israel. The polling numbers bear this out.

The Jewish People Policy Institute found that only 28% of strong liberal Jews support the war while 62% oppose it. Support climbs to 100% among strong conservative Jews. The partisan split is even more dramatic. Trump voters among American Jews back the war at 99%, while Harris voters divide 47% to 42%.

The picture among Americans generally looks very different. Pew Research found that 59% of Americans said the United States made the wrong decision in using military force and 61% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the conflict. An AP-NORC poll found that 59% of Americans believe U.S. military action has gone “too far,” while a Quinnipiac survey reported 74% oppose sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. The immediate unpopularity of the Iran war combined with Israel’s sullied image as a result of the Gaza genocide may explain why elements of American Jewry are embracing certain forms of controlled opposition to the Netanyahu regime, while stopping short of criticizing the entire Zionist project and its thoroughly Jewish nature.

It should be said that rational anti-Semitism is never about all Jews.  Klein’s worry that “Jewish communities globally could be stained with guilt by association in the eyes of those who conflate the Israeli government with all Jews” should be seen as relying on the idea that anti-Semitism refers to complaints about “all Jews.” Most commonly complaints about Jews rely on understanding where the power of the Jewish community is directed, and in this case it’s obvious that the mainstream Jewish community in the U.S. and its powerful lobbying organizations (here and here) are entirely on board with the war. This is especially true in the Trump administration where the more conservative elements of the Jewish community, including Chabad Lubavitch, have increased their influence greatly.

It is simply that their vision [of conservative Jewish groups] for Jewish flourishing in America is radically at odds with the basic assumptions that have grounded American Jewish politics for much of the last century: chiefly, that Jewish interests are best served by the separation of religion and state; that American Jews are best protected through multiethnic, pluralistic coalitions rather than an alliance with the Christian majority; and that the invisibility of Jewish group interests is preferable to visible Jewish particularity.

Ezra Klein’s warnings about the centrality of Israel in the Iran war are a tacit admission that the Jewish establishment has lost its ability to operate from behind a veil. By leveraging control over U.S. administrations to initiate wars of choice, this power structure has forced a public reckoning that no amount of image-polishing can reverse. History has repeatedly shown that Jewish overreach eventually triggers an immune response from the host population.

We are currently in the midst of that reaction, and the path forward lies in the unapologetic identification and systematic dismantling of the Jewish influence networks that have compromised the highest levels of our government and financial institutions.

One was a tragedy, the other is a farce. One happened in America, the other has happened in Scotland. But both of them say a lot about the psychology of leftism. Let’s look at the tragedy first. And it truly was a tragedy, a horrible story from California of a psychotic “white savior” slaughtering six Black children in narcissistic rage. Do you remember it from 2018? Probably not, because the left didn’t want to commemorate the Black children and their White murderer, who was called Jennifer Hart. You see, she was both leftist and lesbian, one half of a thoroughly progressive couple who adopted six Black children, then postured in public as kind and compassionate anti-racists whilst abusing and starving the children in private.

Promoting lies, advancing leftism

But the family’s façade slowly began to crack and by 2018 the “same-sex white couple” knew that the authorities were finally closing in. Narcissistic rage explains what happened next: rather than endure public exposure and the collapse of her lies, Jennifer Hart drove her “wife” and “family” in an SUV over a cliff on the California coast, plunging them 100 feet into the sea. Unsurprisingly, no-one survived and the body of one of the children has never been recovered. He was called Devonte, but did Black Lives Matter (BLM) and other leftists ever demand that the world “Say His Name”? Nope. Jennifer Hart’s death-drive was what I call a meteor murder, something that flashes through the headlines of the mainstream media, then disappears for ever. Why so? Because leftists don’t want to commemorate some crimes. Unlike the self-inflicted deaths of Black Trayvon Martin in 2012 and Black George Floyd in 2020, leftists couldn’t exploit the Hart Massacre to promote lies and advance leftism. On the contrary: the Hart Massacre was very bad publicity for leftism. From the lesbianism of the Harts to their oh-so-ironic surname, it was a spectacularly horrible symbol of how leftists posture about helping Blacks whilst in reality doing great harm to Blacks.

Note the nose: Sarah (left) and Jennifer Hart and three of the Black children they abused and murdered (Devonte is on the right) (see image here)

And I think you can see the abuse in the posturing photos that came before the massacre. There’s something forced and desperate in the children’s smiles. And the children look disturbingly small, particularly by comparison with the hulking figure of Jennifer Hart. In the photo above she’s wearing a T-shirt that reads “LOVE IS THE ANSWER TO [?EVERYTHING]” as she’s kissed by her lesbian partner Sarah Hart (née Gengler). As you can see from her vulturine profile, Sarah Hart was Jewish. I suspect Jennifer Hart was Jewish too. The involvement of at least one Jew in the tragedy is another reason for the Hart Massacre not to be infamous in the way it deserves to be. Possibly Jewish Jennifer Hart and definitely Jewish Sarah Hart did not display love towards those Black children, who were literally stunted in their growth by the starvation and cruelty they endured. Here are some of the horrible details that the leftist media long ago dropped down the memory-hole: “At 11, Hannah weighed 50 pounds and stood less than 4 feet tall, a stature typical of a 6-year-old girl. Devonte, also 11, stood about 4-feet-2 and weighed 57 pounds — the size of a typical 8-year-old boy.”

Jennifer Hart and her starved Black abuse-victims (image from CNN)

But while Jennifer Hart didn’t display any love, she did display things that contradict what “one welfare worker put […] in a report[:] ‘these women look normal.’ ” No, the Harts didn’t “look normal.” Lesbians are not normal and don’t behave like straight women. For one thing, they’re more aggressive, that is, more masculine in their behavior. Jennifer Hart committed mass murder in an aggressive, quasi-male way, driving a powerful vehicle over the edge of a cliff. And whether or not she was Jewish, she certainly had Jewish traits of authoritarianism and self-righteousness:

Jennifer Hart and her Jewish “wife” Sarah Hart (née Gengler) (image from Pink News)

A relative of Jennifer’s, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private matters, said Jennifer often erupted at the children.

“The kids couldn’t do anything without getting into trouble,” the relative said. “If the kids did anything she thought was wrong, she would snap her fingers and say, ‘Get in the corner. No food for you.’ ”

Family members and others who questioned her child-rearing were “pretty much cut out,” said the relative. “Jen wouldn’t have anything to do with you if you disagreed with her.” (“Abuse, neglect and a system that failed: The tragic lives of the Hart children,” The Washington Post, 12th July 2018)

Narcissists hate contradiction and criticism, but narcissism on its own doesn’t fully explain why leftists punish heresy and dissent so aggressively. If you’re interested in finding truth, you will support free speech and free enquiry. If you’re interested in winning and retaining power, you will support censorship and bans on free enquiry. That’s why the left suppress discussion of, and research into, the differences between the races and the sexes. And differences between the sexualities too: the role of lesbian aggression in the Hart Massacre is something leftists would never discuss or allow to be discussed in the mainstream. Nevertheless, it’s obvious in the story, which is why the Hart Massacre was also a meteor massacre. What isn’t talked about doesn’t undermine your ideology.

Seriously narcissistic and seriously nasty: the glowering Giftzwerg Nicola Sturgeon (see Youtube video)

That principle has been at work in the tragedy in America as it has been in the farce in Scotland (or Alba as it’s known in Scots Gaelic). We’ve looked at the tragedy, so now let’s look at the farce. It’s also a story of public posturing and seriously narcissistic people. And maybe it’s a story of lesbianism too. That’s because rumors of secret lesbianism have long circulated about Nicola Sturgeon, the former leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP). I discussed the authoritarian and anti-White ways of Sturgeon and the SNP in “A Tartan Tyranny.” Well, the Tartan Tyrant lost her job as First Minister of Scotland in 2023, but now she’s back big-time in the headlines. Her former husband, Peter Murrell, has just admitted embezzling more than £400,000 ($540,000) from the SNP while he served as the party’s chief executive.

Loving Scotland, looting Scots

The story is both farcical and damning: farcical for how Murrell spent the money and damning of how the SNP’s leadership both failed to spot his crimes and tried to prevent scrutiny of party finances. Among much else, Murrell stole the donations of ordinary SNP members to spend “£3,232 on a Jura Giga 5 Cromo coffee machine, £2,618 on two Feuilles pepper and salt grinders, £1,990 on eight umbrellas, £1,475 on a Beatles special-edition fountain pen and rollerball, [and] £550 on a 1:30-scale model of an Airbus helicopter.” That raises three obvious questions in my mind, but only one of them seems obvious to the mainstream media in Britain. They’re asking how Nicola Sturgeon could have failed to be suspicious about her husband’s extravagance. I ask that too. But I also ask: How did Murrell think he could get away with stealing so much and spending so extravagantly? And how did he reconcile looting Scots with his loudly professed love of Scotland?

Machiavellian Murrell: the Scotland-loving, Scots-looting embezzler Peter Murrell (image from Wikipedia)

By all accounts, Murrell is a highly competent White male of the kind leftist parties across the West no longer favor. But his political success included Machiavellianism and didn’t preclude mental illness. He was central to the rise of the SNP in Scotland and will probably now be central to its fall. His Machiavellianism explains the rise and his mental illness will explain the fall. I ask again: how did he think he could get away with the embezzlement? If he really thought he could, he was mentally ill and detached from reality. If he didn’t care whether he could, he was mentally ill in another way. Narcissism was part of his mental illness, but I don’t find that surprising. I’ve long thought that leftism is better described as a mental illness than as an ideology. And narcissism is central to leftism. You can see that in the tragedy of the Hart Massacre just as you can in the farce of the SNP embezzler. A “pro-independence blogger” called Stuart Campbell raised concerns about the party’s finances as far back as 2020 and the SNP’s leadership reacted by concealing the party’s accounts from audit. Campbell was impugning their virtue! How dare he! And when SNP figures like Joanna Cherry raised their concerns too, Nicola Sturgeon “treated [them] as traitors to the party,” according to Cherry.

SNP = Seriously Nasty People

Sturgeon often behaved aggressively and moralistically like that. She postured as a virtuous woman in a world of villainy. In fact, she’s a virago, not a virtuous woman. As I described in “The Trouble with Trans-Westernism,” her small physique and malignant personality make her what Germans call a Giftzwerg, a “poison-dwarf.” As SNP leader, she was interested only in power, not in truth or what was good for Scottish Whites. Like the equally narcissistic and malignant “nationalists” of Celtic Wales and Ireland, the Scottish National Party want to destroy their supposedly beloved homeland by flooding it with non-Whites from the Third World.

So are you surprised to hear that, as SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon “regularly met the Jewish community and […] always [spoke] supportively of it”? You shouldn’t be. Jews want to destroy White Scotland just as much as they want to destroy White America. That’s why Jews have supported leftism in both Scotland and America, because leftism is the ideal ideology for narcissists who posture as virtuous in public while practising villainy in private. You can see the toxic truth just as much in that tragedy of child-murder in America as in the farce of embezzlement in Scotland. Seriously Narcissistic People are also Seriously Nasty People.

Afterword

For more evidence that the child-murderer Jennifer Hart was Jewish, compare her face with that of the definitely Jewish Michelle Walker, who’s currently waging lawfare against a White private-membership group called Return to the Land (RTTL). For more details of the lawfare and how to donate towards the fight-back, please see RTTL’s fund-raising page and this video at Twitter.

A possible Jew and a definite Jew: Jennifer Hart and Michelle Walker (second image from Twitter)